One of the pleasant developments during the Health Care reform fiasco is the fact certain politicians are being called out for getting their respective states sweetheart deals. Sen. Ben Nelson from Nebraska is taking a beating in his home state. Unless voters forget about all this, Nelson is facing a difficult time getting reelected in a few years. He’s not the only Senator who had their vote bought and paid for. Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana and Bill Nelson from Florida also got special previsions in the bill.
Nebraska’s Sen. Nelson is in full damage controlnow over his actions.
Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy.
Nelson, who provided the crucial 60th vote to advance the bill toward Senate passage on Dec. 19, has been active ever since trying to explain his actions to Nebraskans. Ads have aired on television and Nelson is making the rounds with the state’s media.
You know things are dire when a Senator is paying for ads and he’s not up for reelection until 2012. It’s nice of Nelson to complain about health care now that he’s voted for it. Can anyone make a logical argument why this is being rammed down our throats when the economy is the number one problem? Forcing young people to get health care by law is a joke. It’s cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for health care. So that means everyone who has health care will see their premiums rise. This whole bill is maddening.
I haven’t written very much about the much publicized Tea Party movement, mostly due to the fact that it’s a rather faceless mob. The Republican establishment isn’t fueling it. In fact, the GOP elite look down their nose at the angry mob. The Democrats consider anyone to the right of Tom Harkin a wingnut. It’s not surprising that centrist Democrats are fleeing into the open arms of the GOP. The Tea Party types are really asking for change.
The Tea Partiers are united by what they opposed. What do they oppose? Well, practically everything, but that’s not the entire story. A growing segment of Americans are sick and tired of lying politicians who are absolutely corrupt. They’re fed up with all the spending. New York Times columnist David Brook believes there’s a rift between the educated class and the public. The educated class is a bit broad, but there’s a healthy dose of skepticism about the ideas of the elite.
Why shouldn’t the public be skeptical? The so-called elites are always of full of ideas born in some abstract backwater far removed from reality, but that doesn’t mean that any of them are any good. Free food for the entire population is a great idea. Well, until you try to figure out how to do it or pay for it. The educated class has been great at coming up with ideas we can’t afford. The American middle class has paid for all these forays into Utopia. Here’s Brook’s take on the Tea Party’s future:
The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.
Over the course of this year, the Tea Party movement will probably be transformed. Right now it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.
There a plenty of political scenarios in play here. I’ll play prognosticator. In the short run (2010) Republicans will benefit from the anti-government fever. The Tea Party will remain rather faceless until we move further into the year. I don’t know who will ultimately rise out of the chaos, but someone will try to attach themselves to the movement. 2012 could be a disaster for the GOP. The Democrats will be united behind Obama. If not, they’ll be united behind whoever the party nominates for election. I doubt the GOP embraces the Tea Party. They’re outsiders and the Republican hierarchy will reject it. The Tea Party could be Ross Perot on steroids. Unless there’s some kind of amazing groundswell of support, I can’t see a third-party candidate winning. Ultimately, a strong Tea Party candidate only siphons votes from the GOP.
In the long run the Tea Party movement could mean the end of the GOP as it exists today. It also (despite widespread ridicule from the left) may represent the only chance at real change being offered in politics. The Democrats are for more of the same. The Republicans are opposed to the status quo but are unwilling to do anything. Perhaps this is the answer of the Progressive Era.
It’s time to be frank. The Democrat party has no problem with illegal immigration. In fact, they’ll encourage it as long as those people vote for their party. If the White House decides to push amnesty the November elections will be even uglier for Democrats.
Lawmakers who want to extend health coverage to illegal immigrants will not block the passage of the final health care reform bill so long as the White House offers a substantive promise to start pushing comprehensive immigration legislation this year.
Democrats who want a comprehensive bill that reforms immigration law but also offers a pathway to citizenship have threatened to vote against health care if illegals aren’t included in the new system, making immigration one of the sticking points as Democratic leaders negotiate the final details.
The average American doesn’t want to pay for an illegal immigrant’s health care. In a way we already do, but that’s not the point. While the Federal Government decides whether or not I can turn my iPod on during a flight we’re letting millions of people stream across the border. Simply granting these people citizenship is repulsive. There are plenty of people in this world who want to come to America and become citizens. I have no problem with legal immigration, I think we should encourage it. Enforce our borders and start deporting the law breakers. Open up an Ellis Island type facility in Texas and start letting people come here who want to be citizens.
This should be a common sense issue, but unfortunately both Republican and Democrats want to turn these illegal aliens into a voting bloc.
Here’s another addition to the list of studies I thought I’d never see. I guess Proverbs 13:24 is correct. It seems disciplining your children isn’t so bad. Well, as long as your not abusing them.
According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.
But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.
What is a parent to do if there adolescent child needs a good spanking? It’s kind of like a chicken and egg discussion. Do the spankings lead to behavior problems or do the behavioral problems lead to spanking? Anyway, my parents stopped with the spankings for me around 12 I think? Maybe a little younger. I think I turned out all right. I’ve never been arrested. Ultimately children need discipline. There’s no doubt a lot of our educational problems in this country boil down to parental issues.
How dire is the political landscape for Democrats? Well, now they’re turning their ire toward Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen, which polls likely voters, typically runs about five points different than mainstream news polls. It should also be noted that Rasmussen is the most accurate of all the polls in predicting outcomes. Rasmussen was one of the few pollsters that accurately predicted the last election and the generic voter turnout as well.
During the last election Rasmussen didn’t show the the wild swings that Zogby and other showed in the last days. At the time some Republicans complained about Rasmussen. This is the textbook example of kill the messenger.
“He polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod,” said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who studies polling. “It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”
On Saturday, Dec. 26, for example, Rasmussen’s daily tracking had Obama’s approval at 44 percent, with a disapproval figure of 56 percent. A Real Clear Politics compilation of other pollsters, meanwhile, showed Obama with an average approval figure of 49.5 percent and disapproval of 45.1 percent.
In the 2004 election the Real Clear Politics compilation of other pollsters showed Bush’s approval rating at 49%. On election day Rasmussen had Bush’s approval rating at the correct number of 52%. What many on the left fail to see is that most mainstream polling agencies almost always poll kindly for Democrats. I don’t think that anything sinister is going on; it’s just poor polling. Here’s an example from CNN in April 2004.
The survey, conducted Friday through Sunday, found that among all adults — not just likely voters — only 46 percent approved of Bush’s performance in office — the lowest rating of his presidency in this poll. [emphasis added]
Polls that measure a “survey of adults” are almost always 3-5 points biased toward Democrats. I doubt many Democrats were concerned by CNN’s headline: “Bush Approval Hits New Low in Poll.” Basically the only crime Rasmussen is committing is that he’s accurate and he polls every day. If you don’t like the message, kill the messenger.
Recent Comments